The two most official or legitimate claims that can EVER be made, where related to Obama during his adult life and ACORN are as follows.
1.) President Obama represented ACORN in a 1994 suit against redlining.
If President Obama is 46 now, that made him 31 and relatively "fresh" out of law school by a couple of years (or 4-5), and probably very eager to represent any national organization during a suit involving another large company. The pay would have been vary good and the marketing would definitely pay off when hoping to represent other large organization and company's in the future if he did well.
2.) The Democratic National Committee hired, CSI or Citizens Services Incorporated, a non-profit Association of Community Organizers for a "Reform" campaign intended to increase voter turnout was hired during the 2008 presidential election campaign. (This group is said to be a subsidiary of ACORN) And CSI ultimately only received $375.000 of the $800,000 the Democratic National Committee intended to spend with them for their "Get out the Vote" street pedaling of fliers and door to door handouts.
If you want to hire thousands of "instantly" available folks to go door to door in numerous states across the country, which other organizations do you suggest calling? Perhaps it would be much more encouraging if their were many more. substantially more ethical choice to pursue. Especially those who were more comfortable heading into minority neighborhoods, and perhaps more important didn't merely concentrate on those markets and demographics, but also had a much broader, and again more honest, approach. But what difference does $375,000 really make in a campaign expenditure exceeding $100,000,000
There is often a 3rd mention of involvement with ACORN for Obama from his 20's; when, shame on him! ...he was also associated with a large group of volunteer's and other paid staff members who were working on the “Project Vote” campaign, which was started as one of ACORN’s many voter registration drives.
Obama worked for this "Project Vote" for a period of roughly seven months in 1992. And I admit, I am truly baffled as to what negative sentiment this implies of a man approaching 50, when back in his twenty's he was working side by side with folks trying to encourage a "get out and vote" type of campaign. Even if we have now learned 16 years later that this organization has gone to pot, is it really some Twenty year old's fault, or a negative reflection on him? We are some desperate folks if we think connecting dots like this are worthy of our time!
So each person must ask themselves:
Do these two past professional consultations, and/or stints of involvements using a related subsidiary, and representing a 15 year old case ACORN filled against another firm really justify the bazaar and belligerent connection and so called "reporting" which is somehow transposed on our President as if there is rationally some more clandestine relationship or in anyway some method by which ACORN actually influences his Presidency?
Typical commentary on the matter!
Typical Fox video on the matter...